At 10:24 AM -0500 10/7/00, Brett McLaughlin wrote:
>Directly returning Java bytecode, in the object format that it
>represents, will always, always, always be simpler and faster than
>converting to XML.
Perhaps. However, there's no evidence of that since there's no remote
procedure call form that ships byte code over the Net. RMI does not
in fact ship objects as byte code over the net. What it ships is a
custom serialization format that's proven to be extremely inefficient
in practice, and very easily surpassed by XML alternatives. I don't
know that object serialization had to use such a slow, inefficient
format; but it did.
More importantly, however, is that RMI is Java-to-Java only, and even
if you're only doing Java-to-Java today, it's hard to predict what
you'll be using tomorrow. Using XMl for the serialization syntax
makes your whole system a lot more flexible, debuggable, and
upgradeable than using RMI.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo at metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999) |
|http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/ |
|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+